Councils making millions
in incentives after snatching record numbers of babies for adoption

By SUE REID

Councils are being offered
bonuses of millions of pounds if they meet controversial State adoption
targets.

Confidential figures obtained
by the Daily Mail show that £36million in 'reward grants' has
been promised to English councils in an attempt by Labour to increase
adoptions of children by 50 per cent.

The money-earning targets
were introduced by Tony Blair in 2000 and were intended to lift more
older children out of the care system.

But critics say it is the
most 'adoptable' babies and children under four who are being removed
in the biggest numbers.

More than 900 newborn babies
are now being taken from their mothers each year, a 300 per cent increase
in little more than a decade.

The number of children aged
between a week and a month removed from their parents has risen to 1,300
annually, a rise of 141 per cent in the same time.

In the past two weeks alone,
eight newborn babies have been taken from their mothers at hospitals
in Newcastle and North Tyneside.

The number is so high there
are not enough foster parents in the area. One baby - thought to be
the ninth taken from its parents - is being cared for in a special hospital
unit because there is no foster home available.

Liberal Democrat MP John
Hemming has demanded an explanation.

He said: "We are seeing
a massive increase in the forced removal of newborns. Babies are being
taken before they can even be breastfed. Social workers are seizing
very young children on the flimsiest of excuses and giving them to other
families.

"This smacks of social
engineering on a grand scale. The offer of monetary rewards for meeting
the targets has created a frenzy among social workers. There are council
targets for recycling rubbish and now targets for recycling children."

Figures prepared by the Department
for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils -
Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million over three years
to encourage additional adoptions.

Critics say very young children
are specifically selected - even before birth - by social workers to
get the bonuses. It is believed that 1,000 each year are wrongly taken
from their parents.

Last week a court ruled that
a couple whose first three children were taken for adoption should keep
their fourth, now a year old.

Abuse allegations against
Mark and Nicky Webster turned out to be false. But they will never see
their three lost children again because adoptions are irreversible.

Despite the cash inducements,
adoptions of older children - the very ones who were meant to be helped
- have dropped dramatically.

The number of over-sevens
adopted in England has fallen from 100 in 1996 to 50 last year out of
a total of 5,400 adoptions.

Beverley Beech, of the Association
for Improvements in the Maternity Services - a body which advises new
mothers - said: "The Government is denying that social workers
are targeting babies for adoption.

"But the desperate calls
on our helpline from pregnant women who have already been told by social
workers, for no good reason, that they will lose their babies immediately
they are born, or from mothers of new babies taken for adoption, prove
these denials are not true."

Campaigners also want an
opening up of family courts, where adoptions are overseen in utmost
secrecy. Parents are warned that if they tell anyone - even their closest
family - what goes on they could face prison for contempt of court.

Family law solicitor Sarah
Harman, the sister of Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, said: "It's
not the welfare of the child that is being protected - it's the welfare
of social workers".

North Tyneside Council said
last night: "In the past few weeks steps have been taken to protect
six babies at serious risk of significant harm. In all cases the mothers
have frequent contact with their babies and are encouraged to breastfeed."

Newcastle Council confirmed
that two babies had been removed during the same period.